Tithing - "How to" not "whether"

[StanJ]

Hi Jim,

Tithing is one of the oldest laws of the OT and is one that is carried forward in the NT. The tithe is a minimum. Some do way more. The tithe was in existence before the written laws of the OT as clearly shown by Abraham in Gen 14. A study on this would reveal to you that Melchizedek was the manifestation of the Word in the OT, as Jesus is the incarnation of the Word in the NT. Sadly too many people are hung up on legalities, instead of the spirit of this practise. I encourage you to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in your life and do as He leads you to do. The more we let go of our money the more we glorify God.

 

[Axehead]

Hi Jim,

Tithing is one of the oldest laws of the OT and is one that is carried forward in the NT. The tithe is a minimum. Some do way more. The tithe was in existence before the written laws of the OT as clearly shown by Abraham in Gen 14. A study on this would reveal to you that Melchizedek was the manifestation of the Word in the OT, as Jesus is the incarnation of the Word in the NT. Sadly too many people are hung up on legalities, instead of the spirit of this practise. I encourage you to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in your life and do as He leads you to do. The more we let go of our money the more we glorify God.

[SIZE=14pt]To say that "Tithing is one of the oldest laws of the OT and is one that is carried forward in the NT" and then to say "Sadly, too many people are hung up on legalities" is a severe contradiction in terms. Especially, when you top if off with, "I encourage you to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in your life and do as He leads you to do". This is teaching total confusion and contradiction. If you only said, "I encourage you to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in your life and do as He leads you to do", you would have been in agreement with the NT. Adding the other statements brings "mixture" (which always brings confusion) to your last statement about following the Holy Spirit's leading. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]No law was established when Melchizedek tithed of his spoils. And no one has ever shown in the Word of God where this established any law and people such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob began to follow this presumed "law". [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]We only see that this was a one time event in Melchizedek's life and never see it in Abraham's life. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]There is no indication at all that these men practiced "tithing" on any consistent basis, whatsoever. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]The most glaring evidence is that there are no commands from God for these men to give a tenth of what they had. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]There were commands from God to practice circumcision and to build altars, but no command was ever given about tithing until the institution of the Law.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Therefore you cannot make a logical or scriptural argument that Tithing was practiced before the Law, was a part of the Law and therefore should be practiced after the Law.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Tithing has nothing to do with the New Covenant way of living. It is a carnal religious doctrine that keeps God's people from really knowing and experiencing what "In Christ" means. "In Christ" is our new way of living and not by rules and regulations.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]I think Jim got it completely right and there is no reason to take away from what he said. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Axehead[/SIZE]

 

[JimParker]

<< Tithing is one of the oldest laws of the OT and is one that is carried forward in the NT. The tithe is a minimum. >>

Where is it carried forward into the NT? I submit to you that it most certainly is not.

The tithe is a part of the Law of Moses.

The NT has two very clear statements about gentiles keeping the law:

(1) Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, (gentile believers) and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

The church counsel at Jerusalem specifically and clearly refuted that teaching. In their response, according to Acts 15:23-29, in the letter sent by them to the Gentile believers, they stated:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Greetings.
Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment—it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell.

(2) Paul's letter to the Galatians we find:

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”

Yet many pastors will intentionally put their sheep under the curse of the law by warning them not to "rob God" by not giving "God's tithe" according to their false revision (perversion) of the Law of Moses. I have seen people who were struggling to make ends meet be brow-beaten by "teachers of stewardship" who were hired to come to a church a get the weekly receipts up. The poor were made to feel that they were not really saved or at all Christian if they so lacked faith that they fed. clothed and sheltered their children before they "paid" their tithes. Such preachers will answer to God for their oppression of His flock.

There is no instruction whatsoever in the New Testament to give a tithe. Whenever Jesus spoke of the tithe, he was speaking to Jews under the Law, not Gentile, Christians under Grace whom the scriptures specifically exempts from the requirements of the Law.

If it was carried over from the OT then we should follow it by taking a vacation to Jerusalem where we would rejoice before the Lord (party!) with our tithe two years out of three. Only in the third year would we be bringing it to the "storehouses" in our communities (if they have such things) so that there provision for widows, orphans, aliens, and Levites. (I have never met a Levite. Have you?)

The common teaching on tithing is a perversion of the word of God and, IMO, a concerted to put people back under the law of Moses in order to insure the income necessary to sustain the local church facilities and personnel. It imposes a burden which the letter in the book of Acts, which I cited, specifically instructs the Gentile churches NOT to impose upon Gentile believers and is, therefor, in direct conflict with the word of God.

Jesus teaching set a different standard. He said that to love God and your neighbor fulfilled all the law and the prophets.

On the subject of giving Jesus said: “Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away." (Mat 5:42)

And Paul said: So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. (2Co 9:7)

Paul also gave instruction to pastors that they should provide for widows from the money given to the church. Do churches keep lists of widows according to Paul's instructions? (1Tim 5) I know of none which do so.


Christians should be taught to be frugal and not be drawn into the consumerism (Mammon worship) of our society. We really don't need all the toys which our consumer-based economy is dependent upon. We should avoid being in debt. Then we will have an abundance to give freely as we purpose in our hearts to do and to rejoice that we have had the ability to give out of love rather than out of the compulsion of the Law.

And that's my story and I'm stickin' to it. (har-UMPH!) :)

jim

 

[StanJ]

To say that "Tithing is one of the oldest laws of the OT and is one that is carried forward in the NT" and then to say "Sadly, too many people are hung up on legalities" is a severe contradiction in terms. Especially, when you top if off with, "I encourage you to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in your life and do as He leads you to do". This is teaching total confusion and contradiction. If you only said, "I encourage you to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in your life and do as He leads you to do", you would have been in agreement with the NT. Adding the other statements brings "mixture" (which always brings confusion) to your last statement about following the Holy Spirit's leading.

No law was established when Melchizedek tithed of his spoils. And no one has ever shown in the Word of God where this established any law and people such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob began to follow this presumed "law".

We only see that this was a one time event in Melchizedek's life and never see it in Abraham's life. There is no indication at all that these men practiced "tithing" on any consistent basis, whatsoever.

The most glaring evidence is that there are no commands from God for these men to give a tenth of what they had. There were commands from God to practice circumcision and to build altars, but no command was ever given about tithing until the institution of the Law.

Therefore you cannot make a logical or scriptural argument that Tithing was practiced before the Law, was a part of the Law and therefore should be practiced after the Law.

Tithing has nothing to do with the New Covenant way of living. It is a carnal religious doctrine that keeps God's people from really knowing and experiencing what "In Christ" means. "In Christ" is our new way of living and not by rules and regulations.

I think Jim got it completely right and there is no reason to take away from what he said.

Axehead

So you think God had no laws before the Mosaic/Levitical laws and He has no laws today? What does He write on our hearts then?

Melchizedek DIDN'T tithe, Abraham tithed TO Melchizedek. That Abraham already knew this was indicative of it being one of God's law for Abraham AND his descendants. Do you only believe God all of a sudden decided that His people should have laws in a written form?

What Jesus dealt with in Matthew and Luke was the attitude of people, NOT the practise of tithing. He supported it while teaching humility, justice, mercy and faithfulness, which is NOT how the Pharisees did things. Jesus did not come to abolish ALL law, just the OC law, which tithing preceded. The Levitical law included laws that were already in existence, including the tithe and firstfruit offerings. Do you also want to do away with the 10 commandments that were the written foundation of the Mosaic law, or should they be filtered through the lens of the NC/NT?

Jesus said tithing was the right thing to do, and never said to stop doing it. It's one a the few things He addressed in His earthly ministry and obviously for a good reason, just as He addressed the law of love. Please don't give me that crap that He was speaking under the OC/OT, because He wasn't, He was speaking as one who had been given ALL authority.

The following link may help to clarify this issue to some;

https://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament

Yes we are under a NEW covenant, but it is still a covenant and God will tell us what He wants us to do. The minimum of TITHE would be a good place to start given it was one of the few OT practises Jesus applauded.
Can you support your assertion that follows?

Tithing has nothing to do with the New Covenant way of living. It is a carnal religious doctrine that keeps God's people from really knowing and experiencing what "In Christ" means. "In Christ" is our new way of living and not by rules and regulations.

I didn't think so.

Where is it carried forward into the NT? I submit to you that it most certainly is not.

The tithe is a part of the Law of Moses.

The NT has two very clear statements about gentiles keeping the law:

(1) Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, (gentile believers) and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

The church counsel at Jerusalem specifically and clearly refuted that teaching. In their response, according to Acts 15:23-29, in the letter sent by them to the Gentile believers, they stated:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Greetings.
Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment—it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell.

(2) Paul's letter to the Galatians we find:

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”

Yet many pastors will intentionally put their sheep under the curse of the law by warning them not to "rob God" by not giving "God's tithe" according to their false revision (perversion) of the Law of Moses. I have seen people who were struggling to make ends meet be brow-beaten by "teachers of stewardship" who were hired to come to a church a get the weekly receipts up. The poor were made to feel that they were not really saved or at all Christian if they so lacked faith that they fed. clothed and sheltered their children before they "paid" their tithes. Such preachers will answer to God for their oppression of His flock.

There is no instruction whatsoever in the New Testament to give a tithe. Whenever Jesus spoke of the tithe, he was speaking to Jews under the Law, not Gentile, Christians under Grace whom the scriptures specifically exempts from the requirements of the Law.

If it was carried over from the OT then we should follow it by taking a vacation to Jerusalem where we would rejoice before the Lord (party!) with our tithe two years out of three. Only in the third year would we be bringing it to the "storehouses" in our communities (if they have such things) so that there provision for widows, orphans, aliens, and Levites. (I have never met a Levite. Have you?)

The common teaching on tithing is a perversion of the word of God and, IMO, a concerted to put people back under the law of Moses in order to insure the income necessary to sustain the local church facilities and personnel. It imposes a burden which the letter in the book of Acts, which I cited, specifically instructs the Gentile churches NOT to impose upon Gentile believers and is, therefor, in direct conflict with the word of God.

Jesus teaching set a different standard. He said that to love God and your neighbor fulfilled all the law and the prophets.

On the subject of giving Jesus said: “Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away." (Mat 5:42)

And Paul said: So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. (2Co 9:7)

Paul also gave instruction to pastors that they should provide for widows from the money given to the church. Do churches keep lists of widows according to Paul's instructions? (1Tim 5) I know of none which do so.


Christians should be taught to be frugal and not be drawn into the consumerism (Mammon worship) of our society. We really don't need all the toys which our consumer-based economy is dependent upon. We should avoid being in debt. Then we will have an abundance to give freely as we purpose in our hearts to do and to rejoice that we have had the ability to give out of love rather than out of the compulsion of the Law.

And that's my story and I'm stickin' to it. (har-UMPH!) :)

jim

My previous post to this probably dealt with your post here as well, but let me remind you that as Jesus brought forward the law of love and self control, He also brought forward other laws that were designed to benefit us, and tithing is one of them. To say that submitting to it, a law that existed before the written Mosaic/Levitical Law, is not our responsibility under the NC is to say we are also not responsible to love our neighbours. Obviously this is not so, is it?
Jesus didn't condemn those in Luke 21:1-4 that did tithe, He praised the women who put in much more than the minimum. Great example of giving till it hurts, also an example of how the minimum was NOT rejected.

 

[JimParker]

<< So you think God had no laws before the Mosaic/Levitical laws and He has no laws today? >>

I don't know why you would come to that conclusion. The question requires speculation. Speculation is a great fertilizer for heresy.

<< What does He write on our hearts then? >>

You are asking for a subjective answer. The writing of the law on our hearts is a metaphor.

<< Melchizedek DIDN'T tithe,>>

How do you know that? There is no mention in scripture as to whether he did or did not.

<< Abraham tithed TO Melchizedek.>>

He gave him a tithe of the spoils of a military campaign. There is no evidence that Abraham tithed annually to Melchizedek. It does not provide support for the corrupted version of the tithe taught by many Christian churches today.

Abraham's tithe of the spoils (not of his total gain) relates to a single event and can not be employed to set a precedent for gentile believers some 2000 years later. Any generalization from that event is pure speculation. We do not build properly Christian doctrine on speculation. "Do not go beyond what is written." (1 Cor 4:6)

<< That Abraham already knew this was indicative of it being one of God's law for Abraham AND his descendants.>>

That is speculation. Paul's instructions were specific.

<< Do you only believe God all of a sudden decided that His people should have laws in a written form?>>

That is an astounding question. What do you think the Old Covenant was? It specifically established a covenant relationship with the people whom God had chosen as "his people."

It wasn't "all of a sudden" because God is not constrained by our experience of time. It was His eternal purpose to establish that covenant and the tithe is a part of that covenant.

<< Do you also want to do away with the 10 commandments that were the written foundation of the Mosaic law, or should they be filtered through the lens of the NC/NT?>>

Jesus gave the command to love one another. I can not love my neighbor by murdering him or stealing from him or giving false testimony about him or by laying with his wife.

The issue is whether you want to put people back under the Law of Moses.

<< Jesus said tithing was the right thing to do, and never said to stop doing it. >>

In what contest did He say that? He was speaking as a Jew to Jews under the law.

<<It's one a the few things He addressed in His earthly ministry and obviously for a good reason, just as He addressed the law of love.>>

Jesus spoke once about tithing in the Gospels. It is recorded by Matthew and Luke.

Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

Luke 11:42 "But woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

<< Please don't give me that crap that He was speaking under the OC/OT, because He wasn't, He was speaking as one who had been given ALL authority. >>

Crap?? The New Covenant had not yet been established.

When it was established, the apostles specifically stated that Gentiles were not required to be circumcised or keep the law of Moses. The tithe of which Jesus spoke when addressing the scribes and Pharisees was the tithe spelled out in the Law of Moses.

<< The minimum of TITHE would be a good place to start given it was one of the few OT practises Jesus applauded. >>

He did not "applaud" it. He used it as a point of departure to rebuke the scribes and Pharisees for their Hypocrisy of fastidiously keeping the letter of the law and then neglecting the important teaching of the law.

I would say that 10% is a good starting goal. On the other hand, if I could live on 10% of my income, I think it would be good to give the remaining 90% to the poor. In fact, just giving 105 in that circumstance and spending the rest on myself would, IMO, be sinful.

But I believe it is also sin for a pastor to tell poor people who are just scraping by that they are violating God's will if they don't give 10% of what they have to the church and then don't make sure they have enough to eat, clean water to drink, clean warm clothes to wear, etc. One pastor I know gave everyone in the church a booklet on tithing that said if you don't tithe you aren't saved. Now THAT is "crap."

<< let me remind you that as Jesus brought forward the law of love and self control, He also brought forward other laws that were designed to benefit us, and tithing is one of them. >>

No. He did not bring tithing forward as a law designed to benefit us. That is a fabrication.

<<To say that submitting to it, a law that existed before the written Mosaic/Levitical Law,>>

That, again is a false argument.(Logically, a "red Herring" fallacy) From the Bible, we do not know what, if any, laws existed before the Law of Moses. Extrapolation from the one recorded tithe of the spoils of war by Abraham to Melchizedek is pure speculation and not a valid basis by which to support a doctrine.

<< is not our responsibility under the NC is to say we are also not responsible to love our neighbours. Obviously this is not so, is it?>>

Obviously, that is illogical and not so. Jesus taught that we should not only love one another (friends and family, our community) but that we should love our enemies and despised people as well. The example of "neighbor" he gave was the Samaritan. Samaritans to the Jews in 1st century Judea were approximately equal to blacks in Montgomery Alabama in 1960.

<< Jesus didn't condemn those in Luke 21:1-4 that did tithe, He praised the women who put in much more than the minimum.>>

(1) The passage in Luke 21 refers to those who gave gifts, not tithes. Those are two different things. Don't conflate the two.
(2) He said they had given from their abundance. They gave their "spare change."

He said, concerning the wealthy who gave their "spare change" "Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men." (Mat 6:2)

<< Great example of giving till it hurts, also an example of how the minimum was NOT rejected.>>

No gift is rejected.

Telling poor people who lack the income to feed, clothe, and shelter their families that they must tithe or that if they don't tithe it's because they don't trust God is equivalent to the Pharisees binding "heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger." (Mat 23:4) Jesus told them to repent of go to hell.

Instead of speculating about what laws might have existed before the Law of Moses, talk to a single mother who just got laid off from her job. Tell her about how it's God's law that she give a tithe to the church from whatever little bit of money she manages to scrape together for herself and her children.

 

[StanJ]

Jim please use the tools provided by CB to properly quote and post. I'm not going to do all the work required to fix this mess.

 

[JimParker]

Jim please use the tools provided by CB to properly quote and post. I'm not going to do all the work required to fix this mess.

Oooo kaaayyyy ......... What do you consider "properly quote" :huh:

I made all your statements blue and responded to them in black. All scripture is green. I've been using that format for years and no one's had any problems before.

I don't know what the problem is. Help? :huh:

 

[Axehead]

Oooo kaaayyyy ......... What do you consider "properly quote" :huh:

I made all your statements blue and responded to them in black. All scripture is green. I've been using that format for years and no one's had any problems before.

I don't know what the problem is. Help? :huh:

Thanks for the color coding, Jim. I had no problem reading your reply to Stan.

My post was rushed Stan. Thanks for the correction, yes it was Abraham tithing to Mel.

If it was a law then we would have seen that presumed precedent practiced by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Have you noticed how laws are repeated and practiced many times in the OT by succeeding generations? We don't see this with tithing in the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Who said 10% is a good place to start and 10% of what?

We don't see any practice of what you teach in the Early Church and the NT.

If you are going to keep the law of tithing then you have too keep it perfectly. Don't use OT laws and create hybrid regulations for Christians (burdens of men). The Holy Spirit is very capable of leading the Church and the Lord's sheep won't follow the voice of strangers. And tithing is a "voice" not found in the Gospel of Christ.

Axehead

By the way, what is the law of self-control? I don't even see that phrase in the Bible.

By

 

[StanJ]

Oooo kaaayyyy ......... What do you consider "properly quote" :huh:

I made all your statements blue and responded to them in black. All scripture is green. I've been using that format for years and no one's had any problems before.

There is a button at the bottom of every post that you should use to reply IF you want to quote a post. You must know how to use it because you did here. IF you want to reply to particular points, then cut everything else out of the quote except what you want to address, and do this for each point. Most sites don't use this type of format but CB does so that's the way you deal with it. Other wise I have to do all the cutting and pasting which I am loathe to do on long posts like that, AND it is better to follow the links backwards.
Thanks

I don't know what the problem is. Help? :huh:

The problem is I don't want to do all your work for you.
Thanks

Thanks for the color coding, Jim. I had no problem reading your reply to Stan.

My post was rushed Stan. Thanks for the correction, yes it was Abraham tithing to Mel.

If it was a law then we would have seen that presumed precedent practiced by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Have you noticed how laws are repeated and practiced many times in the OT by succeeding generations? We don't see this with tithing in the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Who said 10% is a good place to start and 10% of what?

We don't see any practice of what you teach in the Early Church and the NT.

If you are going to keep the law of tithing then you have too keep it perfectly. Don't use OT laws and create hybrid regulations for Christians (burdens of men). The Holy Spirit is very capable of leading the Church and the Lord's sheep won't follow the voice of strangers. And tithing is a "voice" not found in the Gospel of Christ.

Axehead

By the way, what is the law of self-control? I don't even see that phrase in the Bible.

By

I didn't have a problem reading it, it just wasn't formatted as CB provides.

Well you presume the Bible is a total chronological account of mankind's history, and it is not. You can either believe that Abraham was practising an accepted law from God or you can assume God told him that one time to tithe to Melchizedek because of who Melchizedek was. Nothing wrong with assumption if it is based on scriptural evidence.
Maybe you can show us wear God commanded Cain and Able to make offerings as in Gen 4?
I think you understand what I'm getting at.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say God said tenth or tithe just as He said offerings were to be the best of the first fruits. Now I infer that from Gen 4.
I think if you read Heb 7 you may get an inkling about tithing and why it goes to the local church, but then again you have to be willing to see it. If all you want is to equivocate about technicalities, then you'll never find it.
So now you're going to tell me how to keep laws you don't support or admit exist? How magnanimous. Did the law of sowing and reaping also vanish because the written law did?
You've never seen self control mentioned in the Bible? Do you think just because the Bible doesn't use the word LAW in front of or behind something means it's NOT a law? If God states something in scripture, is it not a law because it is His words or commands? This sounds awfully Pharisaical.

 

[JimParker]

There is a button at the bottom of every post that you should use to reply IF you want to quote a post. You must know how to use it because you did here. IF you want to reply to particular points, then cut everything else out of the quote except what you want to address, and do this for each point. Most sites don't use this type of format but CB does so that's the way you deal with it. Other wise I have to do all the cutting and pasting which I am loathe to do on long posts like that, AND it is better to follow the links backwards.
Thanks

The problem is I don't want to do all your work for you.
Thanks

I didn't have a problem reading it, it just wasn't formatted as CB provides.

Well you presume the Bible is a total chronological account of mankind's history, and it is not. You can either believe that Abraham was practising an accepted law from God or you can assume God told him that one time to tithe to Melchizedek because of who Melchizedek was. Nothing wrong with assumption if it is based on scriptural evidence.
Maybe you can show us wear God commanded Cain and Able to make offerings as in Gen 4?
I think you understand what I'm getting at.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say God said tenth or tithe just as He said offerings were to be the best of the first fruits. Now I infer that from Gen 4.
I think if you read Heb 7 you may get an inkling about tithing and why it goes to the local church, but then again you have to be willing to see it. If all you want is to equivocate about technicalities, then you'll never find it.
So now you're going to tell me how to keep laws you don't support or admit exist? How magnanimous. Did the law of sowing and reaping also vanish because the written law did?
You've never seen self control mentioned in the Bible? Do you think just because the Bible doesn't use the word LAW in front of or behind something means it's NOT a law? If God states something in scripture, is it not a law because it is His words or commands? This sounds awfully Pharisaical.

The problem I created came to me about 3AM!

I used the original post and modified it. Ooooooops! :blink: Hope this works better for you. Lemme kno :)

Stan: << Well you presume the Bible is a total chronological account of mankind's history, and it is not.>>

The Bible is not a history of mankind. Genesis is more the "story of us" for Israel than the history of mankind.

Stan: <<You can either believe that Abraham was practising an accepted law from God or you can assume God told him that one time to tithe to Melchizedek because of who Melchizedek was. Nothing wrong with assumption if it is based on scriptural evidence.>>

I assume that Abraham was practicing an established custom. Since the Bible is silent as to the origin of the practice at the time of Abraham, some 400 years before the Law of Moses, I cannot make an argument from that silence as to it's origin.

There is the possibility that Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe because Mel. was a king over the territory where Abraham dwelt and Abraham was giving to him from the spoils of war as would be proper in a vassal suzerain arrangement. (The Law of Moses is in the form of an ancient, middle eastern, Vassal-Suzerain treaty.)

But, since the scripture is silent as to their relationship, we cannot make an argument from that silence either.

Stan: <<Maybe you can show us wear God commanded Cain and Able to make offerings as in Gen 4?>>

The scripture is silent; but we do know that the offering of sacrifices has been a standard religious behavior since the beginning of recorded history and beyond. What we can draw from what scripture provides us is that only a blood sacrifice was acceptable to God. The writer of Hebrews will draw upon that point: Heb 9:22b "... without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." That information will be a key to understanding Jesus' passion.


Stan: << I think if you read Heb 7 you may get an inkling about tithing and why it goes to the local church,>>

Or to the local king. :)

From Heb 7 I would make the case that, rather than giving a tithe to the local church, we are to give it to the one who is like Melchizedek. That is; to Jesus. Matthew 25:40 tells us how we give to Jesus, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."

Stan: <<If all you want is to equivocate about technicalities, then you'll never find it.>>

Here's a "technicality" i would suggest that you consider taking seriously: 1Co 4:6 "I have applied all this to myself and Apol'los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."

It is no "equivocation" to be suspect of anyone's speculation concerning what God might or might not have said in the distant past but which is not recorded for us. I would rather assume that God has included in His word everything that is necessary for us to be saved.

It is dangerous to build doctrine on those speculations and many religious organizations have gone astray doing so.

Stan: << So now you're going to tell me how to keep laws you don't support or admit exist? How magnanimous. >>

Your condescension and sarcasm is duly noted.

Stan: <<Did the law of sowing and reaping also vanish because the written law did? >>

You are conflating two different meanings of the word "law." The Bible never speaks of "the law of sowing and reaping." That is a term invented by human beings to describe a Biblical teaching.

The Law of Moses is a specific, written codified set of regulations contained in scripture and comprising the Old Covenant.

Your argument fails because you confuse the two.

The Law of Moses prescribes the behaviors which God required of the Jews i order to maintain their relationship with Him. That law contains specific rules for tithing. Those rules were given directly and specifically to the Jews under that covenant.

There is no corollary to that law in the New Covenant. In fact, those laws are specifically stated to NOT APPLY to Gentiles.

Why do you insist on adding that burden to believers, especially those who are struggling to keep the electricity on and feed their families?

Luke 11:46 And he said, "Woe to you lawyers also! for you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.

Don't be a lawyer.

 

[StanJ]

The Bible is not a history of mankind. Genesis is more the "story of us" for Israel than the history of mankind.

Thanks, still not the way it should be but I can work with this.

So you see there is a lot that transpired between God and man that is NOT recorded but that we see the results of it?

I assume that Abraham was practicing an established custom. Since the Bible is silent as to the origin of the practice at the time of Abraham, some 400 years before the Law of Moses, I cannot make an argument from that silence as to it's origin.

There is the possibility that Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe because Mel. was a king over the territory where Abraham dwelt and Abraham was giving to him from the spoils of war as would be proper in a vassal suzerain arrangement. (The Law of Moses is in the form of an ancient, middle eastern, Vassal-Suzerain treaty.)

But, since the scripture is silent as to their relationship, we cannot make an argument from that silence either.

Not custom, law/command of God. It is evident that Abraham and God were in close communication.

Scripture in it's entirety shows us that Melchizedek was a manifestation of God. Luke shows this in Hebrews 5,6 & 7, and explains it well IMO.

The scripture is not silent about the relationship between God and Abram, it has much to say.

The scripture is silent; but we do know that the offering of sacrifices has been a standard religious behavior since the beginning of recorded history and beyond. What we can draw from what scripture provides us is that only a blood sacrifice was acceptable to God. The writer of Hebrews will draw upon that point: Heb 9:22b "... without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." That information will be a key to understanding Jesus' passion.

Yes it is, but obviously it came from God somehow. Either through Adam or from God directly to them. Yes Luke does deal with the blood sacrifice issue while at the same time showing that it was NEVER able to obliterate sin as Jesus' blood was. My point was that laws existed before they were actually recorded as to HOW they came into effect.

Or to the local king. :)

From Heb 7 I would make the case that, rather than giving a tithe to the local church, we are to give it to the one who is like Melchizedek. That is; to Jesus. Matthew 25:40 tells us how we give to Jesus, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."

Well it all has to be interpreted into the current BOC conditions, but in that Jesus is the King or Head of the BOC, giving to the established leaders is in effect the same thing.

Jesus was not LIKE Melchizedek, He IS Melchizedek. Both in the OT and NT.

Here's a "technicality" i would suggest that you consider taking seriously: 1Co 4:6 "I have applied all this to myself and Apol'los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."

It is no "equivocation" to be suspect of anyone's speculation concerning what God might or might not have said in the distant past but which is not recorded for us. I would rather assume that God has included in His word everything that is necessary for us to be saved.

It is dangerous to build doctrine on those speculations and many religious organizations have gone astray doing so.

Yes I have no problem with what Paul says here, as it is in the context of what he states previously in verses 1-5. Paul himself went beyond what is written as did Luke.
2 Cor 12:2 and Heb 13:2

No it is not, but to make it say something that wasn't said, is. I'm pretty sure everything needed to be saved IS included in the Bible but not everything God or Jesus did is as shown in John 21:25. Tithing is NOT about salvation, which shows why I am concerned about equivocal language.

It's only dangerous if the doctrine is NOT built on Jesus and the word of God. What organizations do is sad but no in my control. After 44 years as a Bible reading Christian I did not arrive at my conclusions overnight nor without a lot of thought and leading from the Holy Spirit.

Your condescension and sarcasm is duly noted.

Good, I hoped it would show how it can come across when you make what to me was a self righteous statement.

You are conflating two different meanings of the word "law." The Bible never speaks of "the law of sowing and reaping." That is a term invented by human beings to describe a Biblical teaching.

The Law of Moses is a specific, written codified set of regulations contained in scripture and comprising the Old Covenant.

Your argument fails because you confuse the two.

The Law of Moses prescribes the behaviors which God required of the Jews i order to maintain their relationship with Him. That law contains specific rules for tithing. Those rules were given directly and specifically to the Jews under that covenant.

There is no corollary to that law in the New Covenant. In fact, those laws are specifically stated to NOT APPLY to Gentiles.

Why do you insist on adding that burden to believers, especially those who are struggling to keep the electricity on and feed their families?

Luke 11:46 And he said, "Woe to you lawyers also! for you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.

Don't be a lawyer.

The Bible never uses the word Trinity either so are you saying this is a man-made concept of God? I find that kind of argument disingenuous. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

As is the Levitical law, and both were made obsolete under the NC, NOT God's laws but the hold the written laws had over us as believers. It pretty much should go without saying I would think, that many laws that were in the written law, continue to be relevant and effective under the NC. The difference is that God has instilled those laws into our hearts as He promised He would through Jeremiah.

The fact is there is not Jew or Gentile under the NC, so I'm not sure what laws you refer to?

Is it any more of a burden for you to keep thou shall not kill, or steal, or lie, or fornicate? Peter said in in 1,5:7 that He would carry our burdens, so I don't see a problem.
Only those that consider God's rule a burden would feel this way, I certainly don't.

Jesus was talking to the hypocritical Pharisees and teachers of the law in Luke 11, not true believers or legal lawyers. You might want to read the previous ten or so verses to get the context of this instead of using it in an eisegetical manner.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm a workman who rightly divides the word of truth.

I hope you take notice of how to properly quote in this forum now.
Thanks

 

[JimParker]

Thanks, still not the way it should be but I can work with this.

So you see there is a lot that transpired between God and man that is NOT recorded but that we see the results of it?

Not custom, law/command of God. It is evident that Abraham and God were in close communication.

Scripture in it's entirety shows us that Melchizedek was a manifestation of God. Luke shows this in Hebrews 5,6 & 7, and explains it well IMO.

The scripture is not silent about the relationship between God and Abram, it has much to say.

Yes it is, but obviously it came from God somehow. Either through Adam or from God directly to them. Yes Luke does deal with the blood sacrifice issue while at the same time showing that it was NEVER able to obliterate sin as Jesus' blood was. My point was that laws existed before they were actually recorded as to HOW they came into effect.

Well it all has to be interpreted into the current BOC conditions, but in that Jesus is the King or Head of the BOC, giving to the established leaders is in effect the same thing.

Jesus was not LIKE Melchizedek, He IS Melchizedek. Both in the OT and NT.

Yes I have no problem with what Paul says here, as it is in the context of what he states previously in verses 1-5. Paul himself went beyond what is written as did Luke.
2 Cor 12:2 and Heb 13:2

No it is not, but to make it say something that wasn't said, is. I'm pretty sure everything needed to be saved IS included in the Bible but not everything God or Jesus did is as shown in John 21:25. Tithing is NOT about salvation, which shows why I am concerned about equivocal language.

It's only dangerous if the doctrine is NOT built on Jesus and the word of God. What organizations do is sad but no in my control. After 44 years as a Bible reading Christian I did not arrive at my conclusions overnight nor without a lot of thought and leading from the Holy Spirit.

Good, I hoped it would show how it can come across when you make what to me was a self righteous statement.

<<Scripture in it's entirety shows us that Melchizedek was a manifestation of God.>>

No. It does not. Melchizedek is a "type" of Christ in being both king and priest. Nothing more. Again, you go beyond what is written.

<<The scripture is not silent about the relationship between God and Abram, it has much to say.>>

We are talking about the basis for establishing a doctrine. That Abraham was a friend of God does not provide a single atom of evidence upon which to establish the false doctrine of tithing to the church being a NT teaching.

<< obviously it came from God somehow>>

"It came from God somehow" is NOT a sufficient basis for the establishment of any church doctrine.

<< My point was that laws existed before they were actually recorded as to HOW they came into effect.>>

And my point is, once again, since we have no record of any such laws, we cannot establish any church doctrine based on what does not exist.

<<Well it all has to be interpreted into the current BOC conditions, but in that Jesus is the King or Head of the BOC, giving to the established leaders is in effect the same thing.>>

That is totally illogical. Jesus said that giving water to the thirsty, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving shelter to the stranger, ministering to the sick and visiting the prisoner, all of which are acts of mercy for the benefit of "the least of my brethren." None of those acts were directed toward any kind of leaders. They were all directed toward the poor, the disenfranchised, the outcasts.

Your equating them to "church leaders" is utter nonsense.

<< Jesus was not LIKE Melchizedek, He IS Melchizedek. Both in the OT and NT .>>

No. Whenever anyone in the OT encountered Christ, he was told to take off his sandals because he was standing on holy ground. That did not occur when Abraham encountered Melchizedek.

<<Paul himself went beyond what is written as did Luke.>>

That is a red herring logical fallacy. Those passages are not used as a sole basis for church doctrine. Paul's vision was not used at all for church doctrine. Jesus instruction at Mat 25 specifically names taking in strangers as a blessed act.

<< It's only dangerous if the doctrine is NOT built on Jesus and the word of God.>>

Most of what you have presented in defense of NT tithing is not from the word of God but based on speculation as to what laws might have been in place at the time of Adam and what God might have said to Abraham.

What the word of God SPECIFICALLY says, is that Gentile believers are NOT REQUIRED to keep the Law of Moses and the tithe (not the perversion of the tithe taught by many churches) is a part of the Law of Moses.

<<After 44 years as a Bible reading Christian I did not arrive at my conclusions overnight nor without a lot of thought and leading from the Holy Spirit.>>

But you do arrive at the wrong conclusions based on faulty logic, speculation, and misapplication of the methods of interpretation. Reading the same thing over and over again and coming up with the wrong conclusion does not, even after 44 years, make that wrong conclusion a right conclusion.

 

[StanJ]

No. It does not. Melchizedek is a "type" of Christ in being both king and priest. Nothing more. Again, you go beyond what is written.

How can you say that if you don't know what scripture does say OR you're ignoring it?

First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. Heb 7:2-3

Maybe beyond for you, but not beyond for those that know and read it.

We are talking about the basis for establishing a doctrine. That Abraham was a friend of God does not provide a single atom of evidence upon which to establish the false doctrine of tithing to the church being a NT teaching.

I addressed your point. If that was not what you meant then write what you mean. Tithing is NOT a false doctrine unless you are adverse to studying God's word.
Did Jesus not bring in the NC? Did Jesus not tell the Pharisees they should tithe and show mercy? Do you reject tithing and showing mercy in the NT?

"It came from God somehow" is NOT a sufficient basis for the establishment of any church doctrine.

So it's obvious to you, but because it is not in black and white you won't accept it? How do you believe in the Trinity then?

And my point is, once again, since we have no record of any such laws, we cannot establish any church doctrine based on what does not exist.

That's your opinion...NOT fact or proper hermeneutical exegesis. That men of God did these things would indicate they were in a close and personal relationship with God. That you believe their actions were not based on the will of God is nothing more than legalism which the NT is definitely NOT.

That is totally illogical. Jesus said that giving water to the thirsty, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving shelter to the stranger, ministering to the sick and visiting the prisoner, all of which are acts of mercy for the benefit of "the least of my brethren." None of those acts were directed toward any kind of leaders. They were all directed toward the poor, the disenfranchised, the outcasts.

Your equating them to "church leaders" is utter nonsense.

We're not talking about the BOC as a force, and how they impact the community they live in, we're talking about believers tithing. If you can't understand what Luke is teaching in Heb 7 I suggest you study it some more.

You're doing the equating, not me.

No. Whenever anyone in the OT encountered Christ, he was told to take off his sandals because he was standing on holy ground. That did not occur when Abraham encountered Melchizedek.

No, everyone else did not. Jacob wrestled with a pre manifestation of Jesus and that same pre manifestation was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. I'm fairly sure only God in the burning bush said that to Moses.

That is a red herring logical fallacy. Those passages are not used as a sole basis for church doctrine. Paul's vision was not used at all for church doctrine. Jesus instruction at Mat 25 specifically names taking in strangers as a blessed act.

Both Paul and Luke made statements NOT found elsewhere in scripture and acting like you don't know what I was referring to is disingenuous.
Paul talked about being personally taught by Jesus and Luke said entertaining strangers in some instances means we can be entertaining angels. Now where else in scripture is this noted?

Most of what you have presented in defense of NT tithing is not from the word of God but based on speculation as to what laws might have been in place at the time of Adam and what God might have said to Abraham.

What the word of God SPECIFICALLY says, is that Gentile believers are NOT REQUIRED to keep the Law of Moses and the tithe (not the perversion of the tithe taught by many churches) is a part of the Law of Moses.

It's not based on speculation, it is based on deduction FROM what is in the Word of God, just the same as Trinity is. BTW why do you avoid addressing my point about the Trinity?

Well if that IS what the Word of God says, then quote it and don't verbalize it in your biased wording.

But you do arrive at the wrong conclusions based on faulty logic, speculation, and misapplication of the methods of interpretation. Reading the same thing over and over again and coming up with the wrong conclusion does not, even after 44 years, make that wrong conclusion a right conclusion.

No, you disagree with my conclusions, but as you can't seem to voice any refutation to the contrary, it's only faulty in your perception not reality.
A legalistic POV has always gone against what the Bible teaches, especially in the NT.

BTW, if you're not willing to quote me properly, I'm not willing to respond to any further improperly quoted posts.

 

[JimParker]

How can you say that if you don't know what scripture does say OR you're ignoring it?

First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. Heb 7:2-3

Maybe beyond for you, but not beyond for those that know and read it.

I addressed your point. If that was not what you meant then write what you mean. Tithing is NOT a false doctrine unless you are adverse to studying God's word.
Did Jesus not bring in the NC? Did Jesus not tell the Pharisees they should tithe and show mercy? Do you reject tithing and showing mercy in the NT?

So it's obvious to you, but because it is not in black and white you won't accept it? How do you believe in the Trinity then?

That's your opinion...NOT fact or proper hermeneutical exegesis. That men of God did these things would indicate they were in a close and personal relationship with God. That you believe their actions were not based on the will of God is nothing more than legalism which the NT is definitely NOT.

We're not talking about the BOC as a force, and how they impact the community they live in, we're talking about believers tithing. If you can't understand what Luke is teaching in Heb 7 I suggest you study it some more.

You're doing the equating, not me.

No, everyone else did not. Jacob wrestled with a pre manifestation of Jesus and that same pre manifestation was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. I'm fairly sure only God in the burning bush said that to Moses.

Both Paul and Luke made statements NOT found elsewhere in scripture and acting like you don't know what I was referring to is disingenuous.
Paul talked about being personally taught by Jesus and Luke said entertaining strangers in some instances means we can be entertaining angels. Now where else in scripture is this noted?

It's not based on speculation, it is based on deduction FROM what is in the Word of God, just the same as Trinity is. BTW why do you avoid addressing my point about the Trinity?

Well if that IS what the Word of God says, then quote it and don't verbalize it in your biased wording.

No, you disagree with my conclusions, but as you can't seem to voice any refutation to the contrary, it's only faulty in your perception not reality.
A legalistic POV has always gone against what the Bible teaches, especially in the NT.

BTW, if you're not willing to quote me properly, I'm not willing to respond to any further improperly quoted posts.

<<Maybe beyond for you, but not beyond for those that know and read it.>>

I earned my theology degree from Fuller Theological Seminary and have earned two more graduate degrees as well. So, please do not insult me by telling me I don't know haw to read.

What you have most clearly demonstrated is a almost total lack of understanding of even the most basic methods of exegesis.

You have also sent me 9 posts in response to my one post. I do not appreciate being spammed and do not intend to respond to them.

You have made your position and your "reasoning" perfectly clear.

I see no purpose in continuing the dialogue.

Have a nice day.

 

[StanJ]

<<Maybe beyond for you, but not beyond for those that know and read it.>>

I earned my theology degree from Fuller Theological Seminary and have earned two more graduate degrees as well. So, please do not insult me by telling me I don't know haw to read.

What you have most clearly demonstrated is a almost total lack of understanding of even the most basic methods of exegesis.

You have also sent me 9 posts in response to my one post. I do not appreciate being spammed and do not intend to respond to them.

You have made your position and your "reasoning" perfectly clear.

I see no purpose in continuing the dialogue.

Have a nice day.

Well that's awfully disconcerting but I can't say surprising. If you're predisposed to a dogma it takes quite a lot to change one's POV.

I know a very talented man of God that graduated from Fuller and I read his NT translation all the time.

Making assertions doesn't prove anything. Feel free to use your degree to provide some exegesis that actually supports your POV.

C ya. B)

Oh, BTW, my posts were done correctly, you continue to not do so.

 

[Born_Again]

Look at it this way.... The church has bills to pay. If you enjoy worshiping in that church, you should most likely contribute... I don't know why it is called the "Love offering". That is just tacky. Just call it what it is.... "Gotta pay the bills". Don't mask the reality behind corny phrases. I personally, try to give whatever I happen to have on me at the time. I enjoy my church and it's ministry so I contribute. But don't come at me with this "Love offering" non-sense. You are likely to get laughed at.

Just a quick little something from your uncle BA

 

[Axehead]

Yes, just call it what it is, today. A "payment system", which as we know is a "religious tax system". The NT does not mention any payment systems or tax systems. It mentions giving as one purposes in his heart. Making "assumptions" and "going out on limbs" are tool of exegesis that I am not familiar with, however with those "tools", it is obvious how one can arrive at a "payment system".

Born_Again is right, the "church has bills to pay". Religious systems always have bills to pay, and thus must budget and to meet this budget on a monthly basis must have an assured flow of money. In order to have a required amount of money to pay bills (that will be there month after month), a payment system must be instituted. In order for the payment system to be accepted by the sheep, it must be "christianized" and thus you have a payment system called a tithe which has nothing to do with anything in the OT and certainly not in the NT.

Law based = fear motivated = PAYMENT

Grace based = love motivated = GIVING


FEAR PREACHING: Heard from the "Pulpit".

The tithe is the Lord's. (So keep your hands off it)

If you don't tithe you are a God-robber. (Robbers are bad)

A curse will come on you if you don't tithe. (Pure fear)

Tithing rebukes the devourer. (Devil is gonna get you because you missed your payment. Forget about your landowner and paying your mortgage, the devil is worse).

The tithe is the connection to the covenant. (No tithe and you are not in covenant)

The tithe redeems the other 90-percent. (No tithe and you lose the other 90%)

Tithing qualifies you to receive more from God. (No tithe and you don't receive squat).

Tithing puts God first in your life. (No tithe and you are not a committed christian).

If you don't tithe, God will take that 10-percent from you. (Ouch! Take, take, take)

If everyone tithed, churches would have plenty of money.
(It's your fault that churches are impoverished. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution).

Heaven will be shut up against you if you don't tithe.
(Ouch again!! Please God, I have to pay my bills or else they will throw me out on the street).

Miracle testimonies prove that tithing is God's will.
(You have no miracles in your life because God is not getting your payment).

God speaking to Samuel. The Israelites wanted a King and God was telling Samuel to tell the Israelites what they were going to get.

1Sa 8:9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

1Sa 8:10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
1Sa 8:11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
1Sa 8:12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
1Sa 8:13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
1Sa 8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

1Sa 8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

1Sa 8:16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

1Sa 8:17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

1Sa 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day. 1Sa 8:19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

1Sa 8:20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles

Not much has changed since this took place in Samuel's day. Today's "church system" is primarily a product of King Saul (the flesh). If the foundation is wrong, everything else will be and that is why if one seriously wants to get back to the NT, they will have no choice but to raze their current religious structure. You can't put a bandaid on it.

Axehead

 

[JimParker]

Well that's awfully disconcerting but I can't say surprising. If you're predisposed to a dogma it takes quite a lot to change one's POV.

I know a very talented man of God that graduated from Fuller and I read his NT translation all the time.

Making assertions doesn't prove anything. Feel free to use your degree to provide some exegesis that actually supports your POV.

C ya. B)

Oh, BTW, my posts were done correctly, you continue to not do so.

<<Making assertions doesn't prove anything. Feel free to use your degree to provide some exegesis that actually supports your POV.>>

I just did.

 

[Axehead]

Stan,

"Going out on a limb" = Eisegesis.

Let's get back to what the Word says and if it ain't there, let's not make "assumptions".

 

[StanJ]

Look at it this way.... The church has bills to pay. If you enjoy worshiping in that church, you should most likely contribute... I don't know why it is called the "Love offering". That is just tacky. Just call it what it is.... "Gotta pay the bills". Don't mask the reality behind corny phrases. I personally, try to give whatever I happen to have on me at the time. I enjoy my church and it's ministry so I contribute. But don't come at me with this "Love offering" non-sense. You are likely to get laughed at.

Just a quick little something from your uncle BA

I agree, which is why for the most part Mormon churches are paid for when they open for use. To bad Christians weren't as motivated.

Stan,

"Going out on a limb" = Eisegesis.

Let's get back to what the Word says and if it ain't there, let's not make "assumptions".

Well that's almost right. Reading the Word through the lens of dogma = eisegesis.

Now if you have something relevant out of the NT that clearly shows God's principle of tithing no longer applies then by all means show us and don't assume that because the NC makes the written laws obsolete, it makes all God's command obsolete.

Assumptions are NOT a bad thing when they are based on solid hermeneutical exegesis.

Obedience = a cheerful giver.